Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 43 of about 44 (some duplicates have been removed)
have a pretty full agenda all right. is it possible for us not to schedule other abatement appeals for that date? >> you mean the other ones in addition to that? >> right. because otherwise, we will be in the majority of the meeting will become the abatement appeals board. that is my concern. >> i am not sure but i will speak to the staff and the other city attorneys for the abatement *. i will follow up on that for you. >> okay item should be ten. it is the discussion and possible action regarding ongoing litigation. item 11 a. is public comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session. and item, is there any public comment before we go to the vote to go to closed session? >> and seeing none, item b, vote on whether to hold closed session with legal counsel. is there a motion to go to closed session? >> i move. >> second. >> okay. >> >> commissioners in favor? >> aye >> any opposed? >> we are now in closed session. it is 11:54 a.m.. >> item 11 d. reconvene in open session to vote on whether to disclose any or all discussions held in the closed session. >> is there a motion
in the future than we expected to have. one of the key tools that we used during this outreach was a budget tzar game, where participants could create their own long-range plan. got a great response. these are the mechanisms that we used to get the word out about the budget game and about the transportation plan update in general. we had discussions about priorities, investment priorities, trade-offs, revenues, and where we have shortfalls in other venues besides the online budget games. we went to community events in every district. we went to over 18 community groups and boards and commissions and had this conversation. it wasn't just the budget game. that we used to get this input. the budget game turned out to be very popular though; we had over 800 submittals. also submittals in spanish and chinese as well. the premise of this game was a participant would go to the site and would have a gauge a counter that would show the amount of transportation revenue that we expect to have through 2040. the participant would make choices about how to invest that revenue
hope we're going back to blue and this was just a one-time thing. the last time we used yellow for the cover was when the commission sat in 1988 to consider the sales tax plan for transportation and it was a special color that we used just for that occasion because normally we use blue. >> i'm looking forward to red for valentine's day. >>> we already use pink for the minutes. >> we ran out of blue. >>> okay, and blue is very important to this agency, so, you know. >> i'm learning every day what's important to this agency. >>> interest you go. >> use red for the budget. >>> yes, the budget we don't want to be. my other comment was related to employee conduct. there was an article in yesterday's paper about employee conduct that's inappropriate and that staff is taking that very seriously. i believe that is true. i believe with an agency this big spread over as many counties that we are that it is entirely possible that people occasionally do the wrong thing. but i know that things are taken very seriously in hr and elsewhere within the organization where something is found, it
getting to a place where we can get the maximum amount of community benefit we need. this gets us to a place we have 51% renewable generation in the city. that is amazing. we should look at that and wow how they doing that and still competitive with pg&e rates? and i think it's different from the enabling legislation for the contract it's hard to wrap our heads around t i was happy to hear ms. miller to come up with solutions and look at other things and this is a larger program and looking at others to come up with a solution is a great idea but i would like to hear more things like that from lafco. i think it's the role of the agency to serve as the positive, to move the paths between complicated and sometimes opposite opinions and i know it's challenging and we need to rely on puc for experts on the program but there is value what we're paying local power to do and i think it's a way to get beyond the arguments this is just doubling the rates. this say program for people that can afford to pay the premium cost. the work is innovative and i am start to appreciate looking at
you will be the facilities use agreement that accompanies each of those offer us and will be able to review and ratify those agreements sometime after may 1 whtd process is finished. >> i have one speaker card on this item. i'm not sure if she is still here. hillary harmsome. thank you. >> thank you so much for your time tonight. good evening president norton, superintendent and commissioners and district staff. i am hillary harmsome. good pronunciation. i am with the charter school association and behalf to speak for the member schools and our concern about the proposed increase. as a professional organization for charterer public schools our role is help charters navigate their unique challenges. two challenges that come up again and again they receive less money than traditional schools and limited access to affordable quality facilities. they're public school students and observe equitable access to facilities and they're required to provide the facilities equal to other schools. historical sfusd has offered fair rates on to schools with facilities and allowing them t
is proposed to use green e energy certificates, it's anticipated to enroll 30 thousand residential accounts, which is about .68% of eligible customers, and they are proposing this program to serve all of the customers across their service territory. they expect to reach that 30 thousand enrollment by the end of the third year of the program, and just by way of comparison, we're talking about enrolling in our clean power sf program 50 to 90 thousand residential accounts day 1, you know, and that's in part because our program is an opt-out program, the green tariff option program pg and e is proposing is an opt-in pro program so it's projected that the differences that i communicated to you are pretty fair to assume given that that key difference in the enrollment strategies. pg and estimating is estimating their price premium to be about 6 dollars a month if r the average residential customer in pg and e territory, the proceeding had been put on hold in order to allow parties to come to agreement on pg and e's propose sal and all party settlement was not reached, and evidentiary hearings are
,300 at the human services agency, and appropriating uses of $50,000 to the department of juvenile probation, $2,424,528 to the department of public health, $3,180,461 to the human services agency, $400,000 to the art commission, and $1,800,000 to the children and families commission in fiscal year 2012-2013. >> thank you. we have ms. howard here from our mayor's office of budget. >> good afternoon, supervisors, kate howard, [speaker not understood]. i'm here before you to approve an event over the supplemental that's before you appropriating fund from our state revenue lost reserve to a variety of programs that were reduced in the governor's budget last year. i also have with me staff from the human services agency, the department of aging adult services, juvenile probation, the department of public health, and the arts commission in the event that there are specific questions about any of the appropriations. as you will remember, last year the governor's budget proposed and it was adopted by the legislature a number of reductions in both local revenues and direct cuts to services that affect t
to the tjpa. so in summary, the sfpuc is offering us an ongoing service rate that would be 10% lower than pg&e's. an initial cost of connection that is again roughly $650,000 less than pg&e's. and has a comparable level of reliability of service. and so the recommendation is that the board authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with puc. >> thank you. actually i did have a quick question. i wasn't clear from the summary, the $661,000 of the itcc, are we going to discount that amount to the puc? because in the summary it said a minus and i wasn't sure we would offer that credit to the puc, since we would not have to pay it to pg&e. >> the puc has said is that they would limit the cost to the tjpa to the amount that it would cost them to establish pg&e network grid service, less the amount of that fee. so that is a further decrease in the initial cost investment to the tjpa for the amount of that fee, which at the time of the pg&e proposal was 22% of the costs. >> thank you. director metcalf? >> why is the sf puc proposing to subsidize the installation by 3. 5 million dollars? >> the
of the city, we really deeply appreciate the year of support that you have given us already last year and look forward to the continuing support of funding to backfill this. what it means to us specifically is that there's a long waiting list in the city. we have a long waiting list of people that need subsidized child care. a couple years ago it was about 3,000. right now it almost sits at 5,000 people waiting for child -- affordable child care slots. and the working families going to school, working very hard, if they didn't get this child care, specifically at our site, we would lose about 30 families and children. so, if they don't have subsidized child care, they might not be able to work, not go to school, not be productive citizens of san francisco. so, i urge you seriously to consider this for this year and in future years to help the families that we serve on a daily basis in san francisco because it makes a difference. and this city is taking leadership if you do support this. i appreciate the time and effort and hope you support this wholeheartedly. thank you. >> thank you very much
, but if he is just going to tell them before the investigation, what is the use? >> any other public comment? is there a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> hearing none, the meeting is adjourned. [ gavel ] >> welcome everyone to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance committee, regular meeting for wednesday, feb6th, 2013. my name is supervisor mark farrell, i am the chair of this committee and we're joined by supervisor eric mar, the vice-chair and supervisor avalos and joined by board president david chiu. i would like to thank the members of sfgovtv, who are covering this meeting and also the clerk of the board, victor young. mr. clerk, do we have any announcements? >> yes, please silence all cell phones and electronic devices and completed speaker cards and copies of any documents to be include as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the february 12th, board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated >> thank you, mr. clerk, would you call item no. 1.
that could be a really good eligible use for any funds that we have, to have our own power system, we can help to ramp up. >> that's a great recommendation, thank you, and then as you know, puc is in the beginning phases of its sewer system improvement program and are trying to integrate some of the innovative technology resource recovery and the waste water process, so some ideas around that, and then i think one thing we were really pleased about is that last year when the legislature did their initial bills around happen trade revenue allocation, there is a requirement that up to 25% of dollars be spent in disadvantaged communities, historically, san francisco, the definition of disadvantaged communities that the state uses is one that keeps income relative to the state and so we often don't count as a disadvantaged community though we have many neighborhood that are struggling, i think the definition they're using for disadvantaged communities in the context of cap and trade dollars, the bayview hunter's point community will be eligible for those funds so we are hope hating we can try
appreciate your consideration of the legislation in us today to continue changes to our city's local business enterprise ordinance to increase contracting opportunities for so-called certified puc lbe, which are small businesses located within our regional water service area, but outside of the boundaries of san francisco. the puc lbe program was created in 2006 to allow small business that operate within our puc water service area to compete for work on the water system improvement program; as know the wisp program has two-thirds of costs being paid by regional water customers of the sfpuc and so the thinking in 2006 it was appropriate for those communities that pay for our water systems improvement to also yield the local economic benefits that are certified puc lbe contracting program can provide. since the wisp program is nearing completion, but the sfpuc has additional projects within the water service area that are not part of wisp construction, the changes in this legislation would allow puc it to continue to support the small businesses by expanding the program to other areas in the r
a three-quarter vote for us to issue more bonds. in addition to what julie has mentioned, while we want to constrain the costs, we have also been achieving a great deal of savings on our revenue bond issuances. we have refunded every revenue bond that we could, achieving $52 million of rate payer saving over the last three years. in addition, we sold sewer bonds on monday morning and we were the first city department to sell bond since the city's geo bond rating was upgraded. and the market received us very, very well. we saved rate payers over $150 million because of the aggressive bidding buyers wanted to buy san francisco sewer bonds. we achieved foreign rates at about 3.58%. so, while julie and i give you the good news and the bad news, we're balancing the budget and we want to do that to make sure rates stay as affordable as we can. >> another option we would have, too, supervisor, we have an ongoing capital program for our water enterprise and there's been question that some of the improvements in that program could be deferred slightly and some of the wsip improvements could be m
of the technology store vendors using department funds that have been approved and the board of supervisors annual budgetary process and which is certified by the controller. oca started a process to develop a new competitive solicitation to award new contracts to replace these contracts prior to them when they expire on december 31st, 2013. given the estimated contract values, oc would -- oca would be returning to the board after that solicitation to request your approval for new contracts over 10 million. i would be glad to respond to questions. >> colleagues, any questions? actually, can i just ask, mr. jones, upping the cap $30 million, what are the additional tech expenses that you anticipate just on a bigger level that will come in? so, it looks like we may exceed the limit by march 2013. what are some examples that these large tech expenses that may be coming through the rest of the year? >> specifically on some of the allowances with you include, there are a number of ongoing large projects that were just started and the departments have not encumbered all of the funds that they anticipate
came over to puc, i brought it to the puc. and the whole issue was to really help us do small projects instead of doing plans and specs and going out and advertising, joc was the vehicle that you can actually perform that. and, so, we've been working, trying to include more local businesses. we went out with the -- we spearheaded the micro joc where it's a micro set aside for small businesses. and we've looked at bonding issues on joc. so, we've done a lot to really make joc, you know, palatable to a lot of small businesses. and what miguel mentioned, we are very proud about that. i think the issue, you know, as far as the audit is concerned is actually pointing out some things that we acknowledge and there are some thing we want to fix. there are some things we don't agree and we've said much that we don't agree, i think on one issue. but we i think -- we will take the responses of the contractors and also the gordon group and the ah auditor to make sure we address their issues. but i think overall it's a great program. it gives us the ability to do projects faster and save the rate p
, in terms of recouping the amounts of reserves that are going to be used here my understanding is there is some flexibility in how much is recoupd and depending how you use that flexibility that could impact rates so i am wondering if you could say something about that and what the thinking is around that issue? >> yes. you will recall when the board considered the program in august the board directed us to -- i can't quote the language, but the basic message was to the extent feasible let's try and recover the dedicated funds. excuse me. what we presented as staff to the rate fairness board was full recovery of all of the funds during the first four and a half years of the program. of course the quicker you recover those funds the more a rate bump it has on the program, so the board dialogue has been around can we extend out how long we give ourselves to recover those funds? and i think under the adopted board direction, yes we can, and then the issue is. okay. if we want to by how much? and those are some of the questions we're addressing with the rate fairness board a
at the committee last year, last year, end of june, there was a consideration for using some of those funding from the state budget reserve for education as well for dealing with cuts in education. so that we had a vote early this year some of us on the board who had actually considered this funding to be appropriate for that. so, i would like to support this and would like to motion that we accept the budget analyst recommendations and move to the full board with recommendation. >> okay, we have a motion to accept the amendments proposed by the budget and legislative analyst. we can do that without opposition. and a motion to send the item number 6 as amended forward with recommendation to the full board and we can do that without opposition. all right, mr. clerk, can you please call item number 7? >> item number 7, resolution authorizing the general manager of the public utilities commission to execute a 20-year lease, for $52,324 annually with an annual increase of 4 percent, with los altos hotel associates, llc, for approximately 47,916 square feet of land known as bay division pipelines 3 and
basketball, line dancing, playing ping-pong, and arts and crafts. >> use it for whatever you want to do, you can do it here. >> on friday, november 16th, the dedication and ribbon cutting took place at the sunset playground and recreation center celebrating its renovation. it was raining, but the rain clearly did not dampen the spirits of the dignitaries, community members, and children in attendance. [cheering and applauding] ♪ ♪ >> . >> [sound of gavel] the commission will come to order. secretary president torres. here. vice president doury commission moran. commission toest is skewedded from todayth meeting. >> all right we have a quorum public comment please? mr. costa welcome. >>> i wanted to come over here and speak in a manner that is forthright. so, some of you received my articles and if you read my articles, the many point is that we serve the community. and what is hooping in the various departments including the s f g o c is that in certain areas, we lack standards. new commissioners know because of your experience that ethics, morals, standards, count.
the ethics commission, then a can of worms is opened and we don't want that. now, many of us have come from the community and explained to you that the southest sector is not only a bay view but district 910 and 11 has been adversely impacted. and, we know just because of the nature of the water system improvement project, that type of project and that type of outreach was different from what is what should be done with the sewer system improvement project and i have been saying this for a long time and i really miss the gentlemen who was on the commission richard straw, i really miss him because, when you spoke to him, he really understood what were the needs of the community. so, when puc didn't listen to us and wanted to place three combustion turbine and is we the people fought it and won, p. kruvment wassen lightened now we have other project and some of you commissioners have spoken about it in a forth right manner and some of you have not and the end result is this: when we dot analysis: do we consult who are adversely impacted for over 60 years do we consult them don't think the
that over -- mta would take it over, they'd have to use those people or hire somebody anyway. it's just normal bookkeeping, paying our bills and dealing with the tenants in the area. we're here to serve. i think we have a good [speaker not understood]. i think if we run -- it's a pleasure to come into the sutter stockton garage and i'd like to keep it that way. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >>> good morning, supervisors. coner johnston, legislative aid to supervisor london breed. i want to offer a brief statement on behalf of supervisor breed. the japan center garage is in district 5 and the members of the japantown community, many of whom are here today, have expressed how much they value having a community entity involved in the management of this garage. they want this lease to continue and supervisor breed wishes to support them in that effort. the nonprofit corporation wasn't created solely to sell bonds. supervisor breed served on the redevelopment agency commission which had a tragic legislate is of pushing out japanese and african-american pr
. >> is there no deferred maintenance here and other garages that it would be more appropriately used for? >> well, that's what this bond issuance is for, in terms of an mta wide, so we can address concerns related to all the garages, not just japan center. or sutter stockton. so, that is our main concern, is that knowing that not only this garage needs improvements, but city-wide as well. >> i understand that, but that seems to me like you're taking bond money, then, and transferring it through a wheel to operational expenses. to the budget analyst analyst. >> mr. chair, as we understand it, the bonds that have been issued are taking care of their capital improvement needs. * so, this in effect winds up as surplus and can be transferred for operating expenditures to the mta. so, they're not short changing their capital needs as we understand it. >> thank you, i appreciate that. i guess my question is but by issuing the debt, you say you're not short changing the capital needs, but tame point in time you're [speaker not understood] and you're issuing bonds against it for operational expenses. you're flo
their bond and insuring that work is done on time. we monitor that what we get works for us, can be intaughted on the building the way it should be and force them to go to the architect and get it approved. we can get you that information but i personally don't have it at hand. >> thank you. >> roll call please. >> on 10, 11, 12. >> yes. >> yes. >> >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> aye. >> thank you and ms. norton. >> yes. >> seven aye's. >> thank you. okay. we will move on to item q, superintendent's proposals first reading. can i hear a motion and a second for guiding principles regarding practices for the san francisco unified school district. item listed here. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you. this item will be referred to the rules committee for consideration, and i believe that is it for item q. item r board member proproposals and there are none tonight. next item i will read the stapding committee and read them into the record so for the year business service will be chaird by commissioner wynns and commissioner haney and mendoza will be members. buildings grounds an
Search Results 0 to 43 of about 44 (some duplicates have been removed)